Theory of Time

[tip]

Theory of Time.pdf

 

In addition partial derivatives of this function can betaken to find the change in time based off the change in frequency, acceleration,and mass.

 

I will put a 3D version of the graph on later when Ican make one.

 

Tell me what you think of this.

 

 

The first page of the pdf will need to be rotated, but the rest are right side up.

 

 

[studiot]

Hello tip,

 

Should your E-V graph not be asymptotic to your (Einstein's) limit?

I understood that was one justification for gainsaying FTL travel.

 

I like, however, your acknowledgement in that graph of the areas beyond our (present) knowledge and understanding. That shows an open mind.

 

There are several functions in mathematics & physics that veer off to plus infinity at some limit, but return in the other direction beyond that limit from minus infinity.

In pure maths the tangent function comes to mind, in physics the specific energy function of a flowing fuid.

 

go well and develop your idea further.

Edited April 26, 2012 by studiot

[tip]

Hello tip,

 

Should your E-V graph not be asymptotic to your (Einstein's) limit?

I understood that was one justification for gainsaying FTL travel.

 

I like, however, your acknowledgement in that graph of the areas beyond our (present) knowledge and understanding. That shows an open mind.

 

There are several functions in mathematics & physics that veer off to plus infinity at some limit, but return in the other direction beyond that limit from minus infinity.

In pure maths the tangent function comes to mind, in physics the specific energy function of a flowing fuid.

 

go well and develop your idea further.

 

In the E-V graph that asymptotic curve acts more of as a division line. Basically,it shows where things are in potential energy and what is kinetic. In addition,the upper bridge, high energy low velocity, would most likely exist in the form of potential energy with slight kinetic energy, while the high velocity low energy would have to be almost kinetic energy and slight potential energy, the energy that exists inside inside the matter of the atom itself.This can be clearly seen with the high velocity, high energy equations where all matter is transformed over into pure energy.

Edited April 26, 2012 by tip

[swansont]

v=at does not lead to E=mv^2, it leads to E = 1/2 mv^2

 

Any experimental evidence that matter continuously decomposes into energy?

[tip]

v=at does not lead to E=mv^2, it leads to E = 1/2 mv^2

 

Any experimental evidence that matter continuously decomposes into energy?

 

 

There is a point where fundamental and quantum physics coexist. Due to the limit of a mass approaching the speed of light and thus converting into energy while retaining a mass. Furthermore, C is 3e8 m/s a velocity value thus C is indeed a velocity that exist but matter cannot overcome. This C then as any V correlates to acceleration times time where the acceleration.

 

 

 

My proof is black holes which absorb matter to release gamma rays from that matter. In addition other forums of radiation show this decay.

 

 

 

The graph also shows that there is a point where both exist.

Edited April 26, 2012 by tip

[swansont]

There is a point where fundamental and quantum physics coexist. Due to the limit of a mass approaching the speed of light and thus converting into energy while retaining a mass. Furthermore, C is 3e8 m/s a velocity value thus C is indeed a velocity that exist but matter cannot overcome. This C then as any V correlates to acceleration times time where the acceleration.

 

 

 

My proof is black holes which absorb matter to release gamma rays from that matter. In addition other forums of radiation show this decay.

 

 

 

The graph also shows that there is a point where both exist.

 

My proof is in the math one uses to derive the equation. I think I win.

[tip]

Anyway,I will admit it is hard to see that there is a point where something is inbetween yet the results I get from this equation mainly with the relation of accelerationon time in respect to the rest of the universe is interesting to say the least. It explains why time moves slower near larger mass when compared to smaller ones.

[studiot]

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear.

 

Your sketch didn't look like an asymptote, it looked more like a square law (from v²?). A square law is asymptotic nowhere.

 

If it is meant to be a (relativistic?) asymptote, what equation are you using?

[tip]

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear.

 

Your sketch didn't look like an asymptote, it looked more like a square law (from v²?). A square law is asymptotic nowhere.

 

If it is meant to be a (relativistic?) asymptote, what equation are you using?

 

It is basically something that I used as a division line to show that there is a point where a mass accelerates until it completely becomes kinetic energy and then completely energy.

 

Edited April 26, 2012 by tip

[swansont]

Anyway,I will admit it is hard to see that there is a point where something is inbetween yet the results I get from this equation mainly with the relation of accelerationon time in respect to the rest of the universe is interesting to say the least. It explains why time moves slower near larger mass when compared to smaller ones.

 

We already have an explanation for that which works quite well and explains other effects as well. Why is yours better?

[tip]

Is there not a point where mass is transforming to energy? The answer is yes and at this point acceleration must exist and occur over a time.

 

In addition

 

Mass–velocity relationshipIn developing special relativity, Einstein found that the kinetic energy of a moving body is

 

with the velocity, the rest mass, and γ the Lorentz factor.

 

He included the second term on the right to make sure that for small velocities, the energy would be the same as in classical mechanics:

 

Without this second term, there would be an additional contribution in the energy when the particle is not moving.

 

Einstein found that the total momentum of a moving particle is:

 

and it is this quantity which is conserved in collisions. The ratio of the momentum to the velocity is the relativistic mass, m.

 

And the relativistic mass and the relativistic kinetic energy are related by the formula:

 

Einstein wanted to omit the unnatural second term on the right-hand side, whose only purpose is to make the energy at rest zero, and to declare that the particle has a total energy which obeys:

 

 

 

This allows me to do what I did. Since, time is the summation of change of those variables as they reach their limits. (Something I didn't show becuase I didn't know the sign for it.)

 

 

 

Really, all I did is reverse what Einstein did to find the results in terms of time not energy.

 

The basic thing is it works and given the E=hf exchange I did could be used to find the accelerations occurring in black holes.

 

 

 

We already have an explanation for that which works quite well and explains other effects as well. Why is yours better?

 

 

Its main use is that it is easier to use and understand than other existing equations and can be used on the fundamental side of physics in a relativistic way. This also can be used to find the frequency of gamma radition of black holes based on the accelerations of masses entering them.

 

 

Edited April 26, 2012 by tip

[swansont]

He included the second term on the right to make sure that for small velocities, the energy would be the same as in classical mechanics:

 

I think it's far more likely that he included the term because that's what the derivation showed. This was not something assembled ad-hoc, it was derived based on some basic principles.

Einstein wanted to omit the unnatural second term on the right-hand side, whose only purpose is to make the energy at rest zero, and to declare that the particle has a total energy which obeys:

 

 

He did? You have some evidence to support this contention?

[studiot]

It is basically something that I used as a division line to show that there is a point where a mass accelerates until it completely becomes kinetic energy and then completely energy

 

 

Perhaps you would like to explain this amazing claim further?

[tip]

I think it's far more likely that he included the term because that's what the derivation showed. This was not something assembled ad-hoc, it was derived based on some basic principles.

 

 

He did? You have some evidence to support this contention?

 

 

I got this from a pyshics book.

 

Perhaps you would like to explain this amazing claim further?

 

 

Based of Einstien's theory there is a point where an accelerating object mass converts to energy. Before that there exists a point where a small mass exists moving at high velocities which requires an accelerating until it breaks down into energy.

[studiot]

Based of Einstien's theory there is a point where an accelerating object mass converts to energy. Before that there exists a point where a small mass exists moving at high velocities which requires an accelerating until it breaks down into energy.

 

If you try to keep your speculation on track it might lead somewhere, but I fear this is a wrong turning.

[tip]

If you try to keep your speculation on track it might lead somewhere, but I fear this is a wrong turning.

 

I would have to disagree all objects that have a velocity must be accelerated up to that point, where once a mass reaches C it is transferred into pure energy. Thus in that accelerating right before the complete transfer of all mass to energy the particle still is under the fundamental effects of physics while retaining relativity based qualities that can be seenin this function since it produces different times based on different objects.Once again this is mainly for black holes.

 

 

The simple thing is this equation agrees with effects seen in the universe and doesn't break any laws. The point where it exists at allows for, right before the mass become complete energy, both fundamental and relativity to exist at the sametime. Thus giving the ability to find time in terms of the decomposition of mass into energy.

Edited April 27, 2012 by tip

[swansont]

I got this from a pyshics book.

 

That doesn't really narrow it down. A physics book authored by A. Crackpot isn't going to be particularly reliable.

 

Based of Einstien's theory there is a point where an accelerating object mass converts to energy. Before that there exists a point where a small mass exists moving at high velocities which requires an accelerating until it breaks down into energy.

 

No, that's not what the theory says.

[tip]

That doesn't really narrow it down. A physics book authored by A. Crackpot isn't going to be particularly reliable.

 

 

 

No, that's not what the theory says.

 

The physics book is a textbook. I am really starting to doubt you know physics, well at least this topic of physics, if you didn't know that derivation of Einstein's theory. And when I read that book it says that is what occurs when a mass hits the speed of light it turns into energy because no mass can move at the speed of light.

Edited April 27, 2012 by tip

[studiot]

No one actually knows what happens if and as a particle with mass achieves light speed.

 

What your textbook should say is that multiplying the mass by the Lorenz factor implies that the apparent mass goes to +infinity as light speed is achieved. This is why I keep talking about asymptotes - do you know what an asymptote is?

The reason behind this is because we include the factor (1-v²/c²) which becomes zero as v approaches c so implies division by zero.

 

Edit:- factor corrected

Edited April 27, 2012 by studiot

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Tip. Studiot and Swan have asked some constructive questions - perhaps you should further consider the question about the line being asymptotic and provide the reference/quotation that has been requested and the discussion can move on.
Please don't disparage other poster's knowledge purely because they are disagreeing with you.
Thanks

[tip]

No one actually knows what happens if and as a particle with mass achieves light speed.

 

What your textbook should say is that multiplying the mass by the Lorenz factor implies that the apparent mass goes to +infinity as light speed is achieved. This is why I keep talking about asymptotes - do you know what an asymptote is?

The reason behind this is because we include the factor (1-v²/c²) which becomes zero as v approaches c so implies division by zero.

 

Edit:- factor corrected

 

 

Yea I know what am asymptote is, it is a limit a line afunction can get close to but never intersect. It becomes zero because c notonly is the velocity limit but also a time limit since going past it causestime to be negative, oddly enough a way to go back in time but since nothingcan go past this time barrier, before becoming completely energy. The Lorenzfactor only exists before c since it is an effect applied to masses not energy.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

Tip. Studiot and Swan have asked some constructive questions - perhaps you should further consider the question about the line being asymptotic and provide the reference/quotation that has been requested and the discussion can move on.

Please don't disparage other poster's knowledge purely because they are disagreeing with you.

Thanks

 

 

Well when you call an author of a physics textbook that has 9 editions a crackpot, thats an issue in my opinoin. Basically, what I am saying is I trust my textbook more, than some person online that could be anyone.

 

And more important what I am talking with all of this is black holes and what happens in and near them. Black holes are known to release gamma rays but no mass when they aborb a mass meaning they must be accelerating said mass until it breaks down into a light wave, in this case a gamma ray.

[studiot]

It would be interesting to learn the title and author of your book.

 

Does it mention 'proper time' ?

 

It is not a matter of whether you 'believe me' or anyone else; my objective is for you to think about the subject for yourself and to inquire further into it. I am merely trying to point out fruitful lines of inquiry.

 

So consider this.

 

Let us imagine watching a particle which somehow has the power to reach the speed of light as it accelerates away from us.

You claim that as it reaches the speed of light it transmogrifies into a puff of energy.

 

Yet the principle of relativity tells us that from the point of view of the particle it is us, not the particle that has accelerated away in the other direction.

 

So why did we not also disappear in a puff of energy?

Edited April 27, 2012 by studiot

[swansont]

The physics book is a textbook. I am really starting to doubt you know physics, well at least this topic of physics, if you didn't know that derivation of Einstein's theory. And when I read that book it says that is what occurs when a mass hits the speed of light it turns into energy because no mass can move at the speed of light.

 

The issue isn't the derivation, it's the claim that Einstein had to "fudge" the equation to make it compatible with classical mechanics and that he wanted the equation to turn out differently. Also at issue is the claim that accelerating an object turns it into energy.

 

Saying you read it in an unnamed textbook isn't something I find convincing; I think it's more likely that you misread or misunderstood the book. By naming the book I might be able to read the section and see what it actually says. But for starters, stating that an object with mass can't move at c does not imply that getting it to move at c will convert it into energy, it simply means that an object with mass will never move at c.

[tip]

Here is some other things I base what I say off of

 

 

 

 

whereE is energy, m is mass, and c is the speedof lightin a vacuum. The formula is dimensionally consistentand does not depend on any specific system ofmeasurement units. The equation E = mc² indicates thatenergy always exhibits relativistic mass inwhatever form the energy takes.^[2] Mass–energy equivalence does notimply that mass may be "converted" to energy, but it allows for matterto be converted to energy. Through all such conversions, mass remainsconserved, since it is a property of matter and any type of energy. In physics,mass must be differentiated from matter. Matter, when seen as certain types ofparticles, can be created and destroyed (as in particle annihilation or creation), but the system of precursors andproducts of such reactions, as a whole, retain both the original mass andenergy, with each of these system properties remaining unchanged (conserved)throughout the process. Simplified, this means that the total amount of energy(E) before the experiment is equal to the amount of energy after theexperiment. Letting the m in E = mc² stand for a quantityof "matter" (rather than mass) may lead to incorrect results,depending on which of several varying definitions of "matter" arechosen.

 

 

It would be interesting to learn the title and author of your book.

 

Does it mention 'proper time' ?

 

It is not a matter of whether you 'believe me' or anyone else; my objective is for you to think about the subject for yourself and to inquire further into it. I am merely trying to point out fruitful lines of inquiry.

 

So consider this.

 

Let us imagine watching a particle which somehow has the power to reach the speed of light as it accelerates away from us.

You claim that as it reaches the speed of light it transmogrifies into a puff of energy.

 

Yet the principle of relativity tells us that from the point of view of the particle it is us, not the particle that has accelerated away in the other direction.

 

So why did we not also disappear in a puff of energy?

 

The earth is not moving at the speed of light relative to the universe unlike the particle, which is moving at the speed of light relative to the universe and since matter cannot exist that the speed of light it transfers into energy. Once again something seen in the absorbation of matter into black holes.

[studiot]

The earth is not moving at the speed of light relative to the universe unlike the particle, which is moving at the speed of light relative to the universe and since matter cannot exist that the speed of light it transfers into energy. Once again something seen in the absorbation of matter into black holes.

 

Did you not take what I said seriously?

 

I asked politely for the title and author of your textbook.

 

I also offered a simple analogy that you clearly misunderstood.

 

If you stand on 'the dock of the bay' watching a ship roll out to sea, you observe that ship pick up speed and move away.

 

If instead you stood on the ship you might well gain the impresion that it was the dock that was receding. Indeed much poetry and literature has commented upon this phenomenon.

 

Relativity demands that the observer and particle in my example have the same relationship.

 

In the abstract: if A moves away from B at any speed v (including c) then it is exactly equivalent to say that B moves away from A at this speed.

 

Consequently the Earth (and that part of the universe which is moving similarly) appears to my particle to recede at the same speed from the particle as the particle appears to move away from the Earth.

 

It was known, long before Einstein, that there is no such a quantity as 'absolute velocity'.

Today the earlier version of relativity is called Galilean relativity. This is still used at normal speeds. When c>>v Einstein's Special Relativity reduces to this.